I know you guys have addressed this and I just don't get it. If
launch costs aren't the problem, what is? Everywhere I turn I see
the major impediment to routine space operations (well beyond what we
have today) is the cost to reach LEO or GEO. If it's not launch
costs, what is it?

Also, is there a good site with tutorial on launch costs and factors
affecting them and the like? Or a book I can buy (somethine
like, "Launch Costs for Idiots")?

Thanks in advance for any information.

Jack

> I know you guys have addressed this and I just don't get it. If
> launch costs aren't the problem, what is? Everywhere I turn I see
> the major impediment to routine space operations (well beyond what we
> have today) is the cost to reach LEO or GEO. If it's not launch
> costs, what is it?

NSS has identified a series of "Barriers" and "Milestones" for space
development:

http://209.9.224.230/nss/community/roadmap/Rmappages/BMChart.htm

-- Lack of Affordable Space Transportation is number 4 on the list;
other items are related to incentives for private development and
government funding, which are the other side of the money equation.

Arthur Smith (apsmith@...

>
> NSS has identified a series of "Barriers" and "Milestones" for space
> development:
>
> http://209.9.224.230/nss/community/roadmap/Rmappages/BMChart.htm
>
> -- Lack of Affordable Space Transportation is number 4 on the list;
> other items are related to incentives for private development and
> government funding, which are the other side of the money equation.
>
> Arthur Smith (apsmith@...

It's actually #3:

1. Lack of government funding mechanism.
2. Lack of incentives for private capital investment.
3. Launch costs.

But I don't think you can conclude (taking their "barriers" at face
value) that the reduction of "launch costs" isn't significant to the
opening of space to commercial efforts. And I seem to get some of
that on this list a lot. The fact that "launch costs aren't the
problem" . . . aren't they, though? I mean, wouldn't cheaper access
increase the "incentives for private capital investment" and reduce
the reliance on "governement funding mechanism"? I don't understand
the contention of many members on this list that launch costs aren't
the problem.

Jack

The fact that "launch costs aren't the
problem" . . . aren't they, though? I mean, wouldn't cheaper access
increase the "incentives for private capital investment" and reduce
the reliance on "governement funding mechanism"? I don't understand
the contention of many members on this list that launch costs aren't
the problem. I think at least among space advocates in general there's agreement that launch costs are the problem. I think there's considerable confusion about the way out of the present situation. Someseem to feel that there's some technological fix which will result in a new space transportation system which is cheaper. Cheaper launch will inevitably lead to doing more in space. But more recently, quite the reversal of this picture has been advocated by some. Some say it's not that we aren't doing more because launch costs are so high, it's that launch costs are so high because we aren't doing more. One writer said that even old-fashioned ELVs would be economical to launch if we launched at the rate of one a day. It almost makes me think that maybe the government should subsidize the creation of a prototype SPS irregardless of current launch costs and whether or not it couldcurrently compete with a fossil fuel plant, if only to get us to the traffic model we need to get us to the launch costs we all want. When all is done, perhaps other profitable activities would then be possible.

Regards,

Mike Combs

> [Re NSS roadmap]
>
> It's actually #3:
>
> 1. Lack of government funding mechanism.
> 2. Lack of incentives for private capital investment.
> 3. Launch costs.
>
> But I don't think you can conclude (taking their "barriers" at face
> value) that the reduction of "launch costs" isn't significant to the
> opening of space to commercial efforts.

No, I didn't mean to say that, sorry - it's obviously significant. It is
one of the NSS barriers, after all. But the problem is not really on the
"supply" side - there are a lot of competing companies for launch
services; there are several Russian companies that can launch for 20-30%
or so the costs usually cited for US launches. There is a lack of supply
for very heavy lift vehicles (> 25 ton) - but the real problem is
there's also no demand currently. It's a complicated chicken-and-egg
problem; and most of the costs are really in the hordes of people still
required to prepare vehicles for launch, and in the very tight margins
in all these systems that allow almost no tolerance for minor changes or
mistakes. There is no purely technological solution that is likely to
help if aggregate demand doesn't somehow materialize. Boeing's new
Delta-IV was intended to address some of the human resource issues
through mass-production and standardization; it may help but it'll still
be hard for them in cutting costs per launch without at least somewhat
increased demand for launch services.

One suggestion I had heard that might be able to promote sustained
demand, particularly by allowing companies to plan a few years in
advance, is to develop some sort of self-fulfilling Moore's law for
launch costs. If everybody expects launch costs to be 30% cheaper in 2
years, then everybody can plan for it and there's a good chance it will
actually happen as the demand and supply sides meet one another at
roughly where they expect the price should be. But somebody has to get
that ball rolling first so it actually is believable...

Arthur Smith (apsmith@...

Mike Combs said (how come my mailer can't quote you?)
> It almost makes me think that maybe the government should subsidize the
> creation of a prototype SPS irregardless of current launch costs and
> whether or not it could currently compete with a fossil fuel plant, if
> only to get us to the traffic model we need to get us to the launch costs
> we all want. When all is done, perhaps other profitable activities
> would then be possible.

Exactly - boosting the demand side, as long as the government was
willing to spend a good portion of the money on competitive commercial
services, is absolutely the best way to get lower costs. I believe
ProSpace has been advocating this for ISS as well, rather than relying
only on the Shuttle for heavy-lift capability to ISS. NASA doesn't want
to hear it though.

Arthur

> Exactly - boosting the demand side, as long as the government was
> willing to spend a good portion of the money on competitive commercial
> services, is absolutely the best way to get lower costs. I believe
> ProSpace has been advocating this for ISS as well, rather than relying
> only on the Shuttle for heavy-lift capability to ISS. NASA doesn't want
> to hear it though.

Yeah, but even there; the reality is that the cheap heavy lift of
the Proton has been used for a key component or two.